Originally posted by Surtur
You don't need to PM them, I already know Trump got a 2nd scoop of ice cream while everyone else didn't.
We're talking Mexican cartel members flaying people alive. There's also Brazilians chopping a man's arms off at the shoulders before disembowling him....alive. Then there's the delightful one, again the Mexicans, where they've peeled a man's face off and cut his hands off and they're slowly cutting his head off with a box cutter....while he's alive.
Originally posted by jaden101
We're talking Mexican cartel members flaying people alive. There's also Brazilians chopping a man's arms off at the shoulders before disembowling him....alive. Then there's the delightful one, again the Mexicans, where they've peeled a man's face off and cut his hands off and they're slowly cutting his head off with a box cutter....while he's alive.
Mexico has so much to offer.
Originally posted by lazybones
Perhaps because I wasn't being dishonest and don't think that I'm wrong?
That's what is called being delusional. You typed lots of stuff but none of it is relevant. You were wrong. You made false accusations against me, too. You're dishonest. You even cited my own citation back to me as though it would make you correct. You even quoted stuff to me that proved my point about the shift if policy in 1993 and pretended like it was in place in 1958.
You're a terrible person. I've seen you post a lot and your arguments are usually quite bad: you're not the type of person I would like to talk to because your idiocy brings everyone around you down.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I think dadudemon is drunk or trolling at this point.
Naaaah, just because it's an uncomfortable conversation for some (because it requires they go back and examine retarded anti-gun talking points) doesn't mean I'm trolling.
I heard that one of the kids who got shot was going exactly that and took 3 bullets protecting his classmates. Its horrifying.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Naaaah, just because it's an uncomfortable conversation for some (because it requires they go back and examine retarded anti-gun talking points) doesn't mean I'm trolling.
Well I gave you an out but I guess if you insist on just being an idiot that's fine.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Well I gave you an out but I guess if you insist on just being an idiot that's fine.
Why do I need an out because I presented the facts and shot down a retarded talking point?
Your out was providing a dunce hat to the wrong person. Why didn't you call out Lazybones or Firefly for presenting a retarded talking point?* Even if you have a liberal position, especially on guns, be honest and call out bullshit when you see it.
*I provided them an out by pointing out that they are young and may not realize that the "Japan and guns" talking point is old, wrong, and shouldn't be used. See how nice and kind I am?
Originally posted by Nephthys
Absolutely heartbreaking.I heard that one of the kids who got shot was going exactly that and took 3 bullets protecting his classmates. Its horrifying.
Well I gave you an out but I guess if you insist on just being an idiot that's fine.
Thank God it was such a reprieve though.
Originally posted by jaden101
Thank God it was such a reprieve though.
What a terrible person.
To sum up for those who won't click:
Trump is celebrating the reprieve he had from critical media coverage because of how busy the Media was over the Florida Shooting.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why do I need an out because I presented the facts and shot down a retarded talking point?Your out was providing a dunce hat to the wrong person. Why didn't you call out Lazybones or Firefly for presenting a retarded talking point?* Even if you have a liberal position, especially on guns, be honest and call out bullshit when you see it.
*I provided them an out by pointing out that they are young and may not realize that the "Japan and guns" talking point is old, wrong, and shouldn't be used. See how nice and kind I am?
You got owned and then tried to chide lazybones for not admitting he was wrong even though he destroyed you. You keep crowing about a .04 rise as if that's in any way significant instead of a simple statistical variation that indicates nothing. And then you started gibbering about Dems wanting to control black people like a lunatic. I simply have to believe you're trolling because I sincerely don't think that you're really this ****ing stupid.
Originally posted by Nephthys
You got owned
That's not what happened at all.At no point did he even come close to "owning" me.
Originally posted by Nephthys
...and then tried to chide lazybones for not admitting he was wrong even though he destroyed you.
That was after he backpeddled and lied about me cherrypicking. And simply because he disagreed with me, from the beginning, he was already wrong. My position was not something that could be argued against. It's similar to plugging your ears, screaming, like a toddler throwing a tantrum: the facts magically don't disappear.
Originally posted by Nephthys
You keep crowing about a .04 rise as if that's in any way significant instead of a simple statistical variation that indicates nothing.
I mentioned it twice and it is statistically significant. Because who cares about being honest, right?
Originally posted by Nephthys
And then you started gibbering about Dems wanting to control black people like a lunatic. I simply have to believe you're trolling because I sincerely don't think that you're really this ****ing stupid.
Then I'm even more stupid than you think. I'll triple down on the position that Japan's gun laws are horrible talking point for reducing homicides because they didn't do that at all. Argue "gun homicides" all you want, that's a retarded argument and people should be beaten and shot (lol) if they would ignore actual homicide rates in favor of patting themselves on the back for reducing gun homicides.
Now call out lazybones and Firefly for making the retarded argument. Please? Be honest about this. Don't take sides because you hate guns. Call out bullshit when you see it.
Here are the facts: gun control laws did not lower homicides in Japan. There was a rise in homicides shortly after gun control laws were beefed up in 1993, not a drop. Homicides have increased, not decreased, recently (despite a drop in gun homicides over decades). Homicides were already on the decline in Japan before the gun law revamp in 1993.
Plot the data and do a regression analysis: you get either no relationship or even a negative relationship with their gun laws. How does that in any way support Firefly's or Lazybones? Reduce gun homicide? Great. They are right about reducing gun homicides. But what about homicides? If we are worried about guns and the homicides, then why do we use a country that already has an absurdly low homicide rate as a comparison? And why would we adopt a position that did not reduce homicides at all?
Originally posted by dadudemonYou seem confused. Let's sum up what happened here:
That's what is called being delusional. You typed lots of stuff but none of it is relevant. You were wrong. You made false accusations against me, too. You're dishonest. You even cited my own citation back to me as thought it would make you correct. You even quoted stuff to me that proved my point about the shift if policy in 1993 and pretended like it was in place in 1958.
Your point(s): Strict gun control in Japan started in the 90s and potentially was potentially linked with the uptick in homicides afterwards.
Originally posted by dadudemonWhat were gun deaths, per capita, before their strict gun laws were put in place?
When did they implement their ultra strict gun laws?
Looks like it was 1993 that the ultra strict gun control laws went into place (and amended in 1995):.....
Conclusion: the strict gun laws had no effect on homicide rates and if we are being fair, there is a statistically significant negative effect on homicide rates since 1993 which could lend itself (if we are to be idiots about it) to the notion that the strict gun laws need to be repealed to get back to the 1990 figures.
My rebuttal(s): Uh, no. Ultra-strict gun laws existed since 1958, when Japan passed wholesale prohibition of many firearms, and those changes were actually positively linked with the low rates of crime/homicide in Japan as per the study you yourself linked. Also, the number being shot dead in Japan has plummeted since the 90s so the uptick in homicides is likely not down to those new laws. If anything, they would have had a downward pressure on homicides due to less people being shot dead, with the slight uptick presumably being due to other factors which I am fully in favor of investigating and combating as well.
Originally posted by MeCorrection: It was 1958 when the current era of strict gun laws in Japan began with the Firearm and Sword Possession Control Law (which itself was actually an overhaul of earlier strict laws established in 1950). The laws in 1993 and 1995 amended these laws further, but were ultimately based on the same set of principles (general prohibition of guns for civilians, regardless of license).
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/japan.php#Law
"The 1950 Order was replaced by the Law Controlling the Possession of Firearms and Swords in 1958.[18] There were some changes made to the regulations in the 1950 Order, but the general prohibition of possession of guns by civilians was not changed. One of the changes implemented in the 1958 Law was the prohibition in principle of carrying guns and swords, regardless of whether the carrier was licensed to own the gun or sword.
So as you can see, the strict gun laws in Japan were codified and enforced decades before the 90s legislation. And I would point out that the study you linked did attribute Japan's low crime rate, in part, to its strict gun controls in its conclusion, naming the Firearm and Sword Possession Control Law first enshrined in 1958 in its conclusion.
The following table shows the number of victims who were shot to death in recent years:[106]
See link for table"Of course, the uptick in homicide rates are a sign that Japan should broaden their approach to identify and solve other causes of homicides, but I never opposed a multi-pronged solution to the problem. Regulate guns, but also take other steps to tackle the root cause of social problems that lead to the crime that leads to homicide. I can get on board with that.
You made your point, and I rebutted it. Your original claims were incorrect. One, that the strict gun laws started in the 1990s. Two, that this was potentially linked with the uptick in homicides seen afterwards. Neither of those claims are true. The first is untrue when we simply consider that the 90s laws were actually amendments to the 1958 laws and subsequent additions which actually established the framework for Japan's strict prohibitionist laws, as so well explained by loc.gov (and the study which you linked, which acknowledged the significance of the original law in Japan's low crime rate) . The second claim is untrue as per the loc.gov data which shows that the 90s regulations lead to a vast drop in the numbers actually shot dead, which would logically have exterted a downward pressure on the homicide rate only outweighed by other unexpected factors. I have done nothing deceptive here. Just simple rebuttal to the points you are making.
You're a terrible person. I've seen you post a lot and your arguments are usually quite bad: you're not the type of person I would like to talk to because your idiocy brings everyone around you down.Hollow personal attacks. Don't care. Just more emotional outbursts from a drama queen.
Originally posted by lazybones
You seem confused. Let's sum up what happened here:[B]Your point(s)
: Strict gun control in Japan started in the 90s and potentially was potentially linked with the uptick in homicides afterwards.[/B]
No, don't do that. Stick with my words:
When did they implement their ultra strict gun laws?..
Looks like it was 1993 that the ultra strict gun control laws went into place (and amended in 1995):
...
1. Homicides were already absurdly low BEFORE those strict laws were put into place.
2. Homicides have actually increased since their extremely strict enforcement of gun laws went into place.[/B]
Your rebuttal was wrong. It wasn't a rebuttal. Please see my above post for why your rebuttal was wrong.
Also, I provided a rebuttal to your fake rebuttal about 1958, already: homicides went up, then, too. Not down. And the ultra strict gun control laws did not go into effect until 1993. It was not 1958 as you claimed.
No matter how hard you try, your entire position has always been dishonest.
Edit - To demonstrate that you're clearly being dishonest:
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/japan.php
One of the changes implemented in the 1958 Law was the prohibition in principle of carrying guns and swords......
The 1958 Law has frequently been amended following a public outcry after crimes or incidents involving guns, each amendment making the restrictions tighter.
And 1993 was the major milestone that passed my line into "ultra strict."
Originally posted by lazybones
Hollow personal attacks. Don't care. Just more emotional outbursts from a drama queen.
🙂
Originally posted by dadudemonI did stick with your words. You said that Japan's strict gun control laws started in the 90s and then later tried to draw a link between the slight uptick of homicides since then to those gun laws. Except the strict gun laws didn't emerge in the 90s and it is impossible to link the slight uptick of homicides with the gun laws as those laws actually saw a steep decrease in people actually being shot dead (presumably exerting a downward pressure on the homicide rate), which means other factors are at fault. Other factors that I'm perfectly willing to investigate and combat too, by the way.
[B]No, don't do that. Stick with my words:
Also, I provided a rebuttal to your fake rebuttal about 1958, already: homicides went up, then, too. Not down.Sure, if you nitpick the few years around 1958. But if you look at the bigger picture, you see a clear drop in homicides. Obviously, wide reaching gun laws will take some time to have effect, and they will not be the only factor acting on crime and homicide. But as the study you cited said, they are at least one notable reason why.
And the ultra strict gun control laws did not go into effect until 1993. It was not 1958 as you claimed.Well, what would you define as 'ultra-strict', then?And 1993 was the major milestone that passed my line into "ultra strict."
The 1950 Order was replaced by the Law Controlling the Possession of Firearms and Swords in 1958.[18] There were some changes made to the regulations in the 1950 Order, but the general prohibition of possession of guns by civilians was not changed. One of the changes implemented in the 1958 Law was the prohibition in principle of carrying guns and swords, regardless of whether the carrier was licensed to own the gun or sword
Because imo, widespread prohibition fits the bill nicely. Ultimately, the 50s laws are nothing like what is currently present in the US, and is probably too far for even some gun control advocates. The 90s laws took it to a whole new level in many respects, but were ultimately additions to those earlier and undoubtedly strict and prohibitionist 1950s laws already in place.
Originally posted by lazybones
I did stick with your words. You said that Japan's strict gun control laws started in the 90s and then later tried to draw a link between the slight uptick of homicides since then to those gun laws.
My words:
"When did they implement their ultra strict gun laws?"
You liar. Caughtcha. 😉
Originally posted by lazybones
Well, what would you define as 'ultra-strict', then?
Oh, now you want to use my words properly after lots of useless drivel? Threw all your other shit out. Mad that you typed so much dishonest stuff? I would be. It took me less than 2 minutes to type this whole post.
Originally posted by lazybones
Because imo, widespread prohibition fits the bill nicely
No it doesn't. Not at all. Deaths were already trending down. Your 1958 date had an uptick a few years after 1957. Which does not support your position at all. Same for 1993. And, recently, homicides are on the upward trend, too.
Your position is nowhere to be found at all in the data. It's as if...homicides...can be perpetuated with things other than guns.
Originally posted by dadudemonYou then followed that up with...
My words:
"When did they implement their ultra strict gun laws?"You liar. Caughtcha. 😉
Originally posted by dadudemon
Looks like it was 1993 that the ultra strict gun control laws went into place (and amended in 1995):
And that's incorrect because the 90s laws were ultimately just additions to the widespread prohibition and gun import bans of the 50s and 60s, which were already ultra-strict by international standards. You can't say that strict gun control in Japan only started in the 90s when full-on prohibition had been in force for decades. That's my bone of contention here. You also preceded that with:
Originally posted by dadudemon
What were gun deaths, per capita, before their strict gun laws were put in place?
Clearly, you were trying to say that homicide was already low/falling pre-gun control by citing the statistics in previous decades, whilst ignoring or not knowing that gun control was already operating on a much higher frequency than anything we currently see in the US previously and was having positive effects as per the study you linked. Again, no deception on my part. Your claims were just wrong by any reasonable definition of the word 'strict'.
Oh, now you want to use my words properly after lots of useless drivel?Well, I had no idea that your definition of '(ultra)-strict' was so absurdly limited that it didn't include the widespread and draconian prohibition of guns for civilians and total ban of unauthorized imports. After all, you are defending the current laws of the United States and the 2nd Amendment which even those 50s laws would utterly shit all over. If there's been confusion here, you are to blame for it for having such a narrow definition (which is pretty clearly just a goal post move so you don't need to admit that you were wrong about strict gun control only coming about in the 90s when it clearly existed decades before).
No it doesn't. Not at all.Of course it does. The widespread prohibition even applying to those with licenses is absolutely draconian and 'strict' by any reasonable standard. And that happened all the way back in 1958, and had positive effects as per the study you cited.
Deaths were already trending down. Your 1958 date had an uptick a few years after 1957. Which does not support your position at all.Yes, a few years after. But here's the thing, making such a drastic move in regards to a widely imported weapon isn't going to work in such a small timeframe. But over the course of several decades, we can clearly see the homicide rates going on the decrease.
Same for 1993. And, recently, homicides are on the upward trend, too.And as I said, you cannot link the recent uptick in homicides with the '93 gun laws in any way, because the recent gun laws have actually lead to a sharp decrease in those being shot dead by guns. Thus, other factors must be outweighing those positive advances. The solution is to keep those successful (as per a study you actually linked) gun control laws, but investigate and combat those other factors. Duh.Your position is nowhere to be found at all in the data. It's as if...homicides...can be perpetuated with things other than guns.